The us open surface is so slowwwwwww.

er4claw

Rookie
How could you possibly know that......................................

Nadal hasn't won the whole thing yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vex

Luka888

Hall of Fame
You can't make everyone happy. What is the source for this?

It used to be too fast. Now, it's too slow. Medium fast? What do you guys want? ;)
 

insideguy

Legend
When Nadal wins his 1st 3 rounds comfortably, this will become true :-D
Until the second week when it becomes slicker and the balls become less fluffy and the humidity becomes less humidity like. And the sun strikes the court and speeds them up or when the night falls and the roof is closed and the courts begin to attack the players.
 

insideguy

Legend
New report just in. My buddy was just playing the courts. He hit a serve at 88 mph and hit the court and took off like a rocket. Possibly 200 mph.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Believe it or not, surprising turns of events can in fact shift someone's focus somewhat. Did everyone start saying the grass had sped up? No, of course not. You're trying too hard.
Trying too hard? The guy that states that Novak is a victim of all sorts of evil people, that states that Djokovic has nothing to do with Kermode's removal and that says that he counts UE as FE, when the official stats say otherwise. You have got to be kidding!

:-D:-D:-D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Trying too hard? The guy that states that Novak is a victim of all sorts of evil people, that states that Djokovic has nothing to do with Kermode's removal and that says that he counts UE as FE, when the official stats say otherwise. You have got to be kidding!

:-D:-D:-D
There he goes again... When did I ever say Novak had nothing to do with Kermode's removal? I said Kermode's removal, where Djokovic obviously played an instrumental role, was spun as negative because Novak supported it. If Fed had been in favor of removing him (and Novak the opposite), then the media would spin the story the other way

And no, I am not the one who took another forum poster's word without actually checking the official stats or how he arrived at the "1/3" ratio... The guy, who posted in the Federer news thread, added up forced and unforced FH errors together to arrive at that ratio so it better fit his notion that the Fed forehand failed him in the match. You, of course, didn't bother verifying that info and went on to make this claim:
I can easily prove it by quoting the ratio between the W/UE from that side which was 1/3
Which is not what the official stats say
 
Last edited:

Rabe87

Professional
There he goes again... When did I ever say Novak had nothing to do with Kermode's removal? I said Kermode's removal, where Djokovic obviously played an instrumental role, was spun as negative because Novak supported it. If Fed had been in favor of removing him (and Novak the opposite), then the media would spin the story the other way

And no, I am not the one who took another forum poster's word without actually checking the official stats or how he arrived at the "1/3" ratio... The guy, who posted in the Federer news thread, added up forced and unforced FH errors together to arrive at that ratio so it better fit his notion that the Fed forehand failed him in the match. You, of course, didn't bother verifying that info and went on to make this claim:

See what happens when you take the word of Fed fanatics as the truth?
Tennis Hands is a deluded Fed apologist who's never wrong. I'm still waiting for a follow-up to his laughable poem about dodgy Roggie after Djok beat him for the 3rd time in a Wimby final, Tennis Hands also claimed Djok wouldn't dominate 2019 in the Slams last year after he won Wimby and USO b2b.

He's a few cents short of a dollar as we like to say down under.
 

Rabe87

Professional
The removal of Kermode was used by Fed, Nadal and Wawrinka to try and put Nole off his tennis game, Nole is the President of the Player's Council *because he was voted in there by his peers*, to think he wasn't garnering public opinion from his fellow players re Kermode well before he and his 4 disciples went ahead and voted to remove him is foolish.

And exactly right, the casual observer has no idea why it's 'bad' to remove Kermode, they're only reading snippets of interviews from Fraud-erer and Nadal. If you actually read Pospisil's open letter to the ATP you get a much better picture of why Kermode needed to go and why the majority of players ranked 40-100 support the Council majority.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Tennis Hands is a deluded Fed apologist who's never wrong. I'm still waiting for a follow-up to his laughable poem about dodgy Roggie after Djok beat him for the 3rd time in a Wimby final, Tennis Hands also claimed Djok wouldn't dominate 2019 in the Slams last year after he won Wimby and USO b2b.

He's a few cents short of a dollar as we like to say down under.
25% of his arguments consist of him putting words in people's mouths
Another 25% is him stating his own opinions as fact
Another 25% of plain lies or unverifiable claims
The remaining 25% are personal attacks

Then 90% of his posts are edited after the fact because he can't stand behind his words
 

Rabe87

Professional
25% of his arguments consist of him putting words in people's mouths
Another 25% is him stating his own opinions as fact
Another 25% of plain lies or unverifiable claims
The remaining 25% are personal attacks

Then 90% of his posts are edited after the fact because he can't stand behind his words
The problem is I have him on ignore but then posts get confusing because he's always interjecting in *everything* so I have to show his petty content to realise what everyones responding to. He is literally a computer program that's operating 24/7 on TTW.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
There he goes again... When did I ever say Novak had nothing to do with Kermode's removal? I said Kermode's removal, where Djokovic obviously played an instrumental role, was spun as negative because Novak supported it. If Fed had been in favor of removing him (and Novak the opposite), then the media would spin the story the other way

And no, I am not the one who took another forum poster's word without actually checking the official stats or how he arrived at the "1/3" ratio... The guy, who posted in the Federer news thread, added up forced and unforced FH errors together to arrive at that ratio so it better fit his notion that the Fed forehand failed him in the match. You, of course, didn't bother verifying that info and went on to make this claim:

Which is not what the official stats say
No dear, you claimed that it is not known what Djokovic's role is. You pleaded and pleaded at the time, saying that it is not known what Djokovic's involvement is, until other top players came out to say that they weren't informed about what is going on. You also tried to spin his role, by saying that the players also didn't look to see him, and when that was also disproved , claimed that he was too busy to deal with them. It was a negative because of the manner it happened, not "because Novak supported it", and also because it was clear that Gimme-stab is involved in the move, Novak's association with whom you also denied then. Good that good ol' Justin is not careful enough, so that the whole world now knows that Djokovic supports the kind of guy that he is.

You are the kind of guy that said that you will be counting the UE as forced, so your reliance on "official stats" is the kind of flip-flopping that only you can do, and yes, that is what happened, which doesn't make the claim any worse at (40/40) which is very low as a ratio for Federer on grass, mainly because of his very high UE numbers count (oh, I forgot, those you will be counting as FE!). I love it how you dug the mistake to have something to cling on, but can't disprove the idea regardless.

To top off your tennis knowledge so wonderfully displayed by your claims about missing shots from Novak's repertoire, what happened to your thread about Djokovic coming to the net more than Feddie? Oh noez, you a kind of "forgot" about it.

Seats!

:cool:
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
25% of his arguments consist of him putting words in people's mouths
Another 25% is him stating his own opinions as fact
Another 25% of plain lies or unverifiable claims
The remaining 25% are personal attacks

Then 90% of his posts are edited after the fact because he can't stand behind his words
This from the guy that:

Doesn't even know what he is claiming until he is cornered, after which starts shifting his narrative, but knowing that he is such leaves a back door on every turn of his claims
Says that he cannot be bothered to prove the things he claims and that he "keeps the tally in his head"
Plain lies about the discussions he leads or other posters history
Just made a personal attack
Just edited his post

Seats!

:cool:
 
The number of court speed complaints plummeted once that happened... mere coincidence? :unsure:
Not mere coincidence.
But does that make the court fast?
It was slow and that doesn't change no matter who beats who.
Again I don't mind the slow grass court but if someone does then you can't take their right of whinning about it.
It is supposed to play fast and when it does not the fans of that particular type of tennis will cry about it.
Deal with it.
People are so intolerant here.
You whine every now and then about this and that and then you stop others from whinning.
That's hypocrisy. Practice what you preach otherwise let everyone do what they are doing.
And yes there is no doubt that the play was slower. Now whether it was the conditions, the balls or the court itself is another matter.
 

Rabe87

Professional
Not mere coincidence.
But does that make the court fast?
It was slow and that doesn't change no matter who beats who.
Again I don't mind the slow grass court but if someone does then you can't take their right of whinning about it.
It is supposed to play fast and when it does not the fans of that particular type of tennis will cry about it.
Deal with it.
People are so intolerant here.
You whine every now and then about this and that and then you stop others from whinning.
That's hypocrisy. Practice what you preach otherwise let everyone do what they are doing.
And yes there is no doubt that the play was slower. Now whether it was the conditions, the balls or the court itself is another matter.
As with all Wimbledons however, the court is playing at its fastest at the end of the tournament. Although the speed was slower than prior years, it did speed up, which IMO helped Serena immensely in her SF and helped both Novak and Roggie in theirs.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
As with all Wimbledons however, the court is playing at its fastest at the end of the tournament. Although the speed was slower than prior years, it did speed up, which IMO helped Serena immensely in her SF and helped both Novak and Roggie in theirs.
Quoting for the posterity. Please, continue!

:cool:
 
As with all Wimbledons however, the court is playing at its fastest at the end of the tournament. Although the speed was slower than prior years, it did speed up, which IMO helped Serena immensely in her SF and helped both Novak and Roggie in theirs.
Yeah I believe that too.
But I don't think that extent to which it got faster was significantly high.
 

Rabe87

Professional
Yeah I believe that too.
But I don't think that extent to which it got faster was significantly high.
Not this year, but comparing from the first match Djokovic played whereby the courts looked like my overgrown backyard garden to his triumph over Fraud-erer, it was quite a stark difference.

My fav Venus didn't get much benefit from the courts, I never thought I'd see her playing so much topspin at Wimbledon of all events.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Lies? Are you seriously claiming the number of posts about the speed of the courts didn't plummet?
The lie is that it was because of Federer won. The topic was discussed in multiple threads already, so basically everyone who had to say his opinion did it ten times. To top it off, the win shifted the focus to the cosequences from it, i.e. the final. You knew that, but you still made the implication, hence you lied.

The only reason why they didn't disappear altogether was because Djokovic was still in the tournament
Specialising in more lies?


Tit for tat
You don't understand that I didn't attack your personality. You did.

Now, have several seats!

:cool:
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
No dear, you claimed that it is not known what Djokovic's role is. You pleaded and pleaded at the time, saying that it is not known what Djokovic's involvement is, until other top players came out to say that they weren't informed about what is going on. You also tried to spin his role, by saying that the players also didn't look to see him, and when that was also disproved , claimed that he was too busy to deal with them. It was a negative because of the manner it happened, not "because Novak supported it", and also because it was clear that Gimme-stab is involved in the move, Novak's association with whom you also denied then. Good that good ol' Justin is not careful enough, so that the whole world now knows that Djokovic supports the kind of guy that he is.
You mean I changed my stance on a topic we knew little about once more information came to light? Oh, the humanity! :X3:

You are the kind of guy that said that you will be counting the UE as forced, so your reliance on "official stats" is the kind of flip-flopping that only you can do, and yes, that is what happened, which doesn't make the claim any worse at (40/40) which is very low as a ratio for Federer on grass, mainly because of his very high UE numbers count (oh, I forgot, those you will be counting as FE!). I love it how you dug the mistake to have something to cling on, but can't disprove the idea regardless.
Oh noes, here he goes again... When did I ever I would be counting UEs as forced?

The claim is made worse, because the number was exaggerated to make his FH seem worse than it actually was
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Do I turn 90% of my posts into ".."?
Ahh, another lie: what I say in my posts have nothing to do with the practice. I delete also posts in the what are you listening right now thread, the equipment section etc etc. If you don't know , don't lie.

Seats!

:cool:
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
It certainly will be? It was slow ast year and that worked against Nadal so no, it's not really tied to his success or lack of it.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Lying again? It was already known that Djokovic refused to meet the players, which was a proof that he was acting behind their backs, so, you didn't "change your stance". You a kind of didn't, and that was the problem.
He said he couldn't meet Federer at the last minute, and the media spun it as if Federer made every attempt to contact Djokovic and he refused to meet! There is a big difference!

I'd have to class those errors (Fed's next shots after Djokovic redirected the DTL slice to Fed's FH) as forced errors.
You should stop lying.
I said those specific errors from the Fed FH were forced errors. I am not arbitrarily reclassifying Fed's UEs as forced, as you were implying.

Just for you, Tennis_Hands, I rewatched the first set to find the instances where this pattern occurred (Fed slice DTL -> Djokovic FH CC -> Fed FH error), and let's see what the official scorekeeper thinks, huh?

*1-2 *15-15: Forced error
*1-2 *30-15: Forced error
*4-5 *AD-40: Forced error
(another one at 1-0 in the TB, but it didn't result in an immediate Fed error)

(Click on the "LIVE" and find the set and game; the scores shown are after the point was played):
https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/stats/1701.html

Turns out the tallies I keep in my head are pretty accurate.
 
Last edited:
Top